RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition for habeas corpus challenges the order detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the order of detention dated 29-5-1999 passed by the District Magistrate. Sambalpur, opposite party No. 2 (Annexure 1) and the grounds of detention both English and Oriya were served on him on 30-5-1999. It is stated that the cases referred to in the grounds of detentions relate back to 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the same were stale cases and that there is no nexus between those cases and the impugned order of detention. Further, the offences alleged in those cases were directed against some individuals. In other words, the petitioner tries to make out a case that the allegations made therein purely relate to law and order and not public order. The other ground on which the impugned order of detention is challenged is that while the order of detention was passed on 29-5-1999, approval thereof was obtained from the State Government on 10-6-1999, i.e. on the 13th day of his detention and, therefore, it is contrary to the statutory provisions. He further urges that the authorities did not specifically make him aware as to making of a representation and therefore, the petitioner could not make an effective representation, for which he submitted a representation at a belated stage on 15-6-1999 to the Jail Superintendent, addressed to the District Magistrate Sambalpur. It is alleged that even though representation was duly submitted for a quite long period he was not informed as to whether his representation was forwarded to the appropriate Govt. and particularly to the Central Govt. However, the petitioner argues that the order of detention has become invalid because of the reason that the matter was placed before the Advisory Board on 12-7-1999, which is beyond the statutory period of three weeks from the date of detention. The State Govt. has rejected the representation on 19-7-1999. It is submitted that the petitioner is yet to know regarding the fate of his representation so forwarded to the Central Govt.. Hence the delay in disposal of the representation affects the right of the petitioner under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the order of detention is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) During the course of argument learned counsel for the State while defending the impugned order of detention produced the records and brought to our notice that the petitioner was detained under Section 3 (2) of the Act first in the year 1991 and the said order of detention was challenged in this Court in O.J.C. No. 6447 of 1991 which was ultimately dismissed by order dated 8-7-1992. The petitioner was again put under detention in 1993 under Section 3 (2) of the Act and was released on 21-9-1991 on expiry of the statutory period of 12 months.